Resurgence | Arshi FF | Thread 2 | thread 3 link posted on page 150 - Page 58

Originally posted by: bakwas_serial

"common societal belief is that a male must be aroused if he gets an erection or has an orgasm, therefore that means that he is willing and enjoying any sexual activity. Roy J. Levin and Willy Van Berlo wrote in an article in the Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine that slight genital stimulation or stress can create erections "even though no specific sexual stimulation is present". An erection does not mean that the men consent to sex.[30] Males can get erections even in traumatic or painful sexual situations, and this does not indicate consent.[29]"...Wikipedia

This is law...yes recent..only 12 years old.

"For the first time ever, the new definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men. It also recognizes that rape with an object can be as traumatic as penile/vaginal rape. This definition also includes instances in which the victim is unable to give consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity. Furthermore, because many rapes are facilitated by drugs or alcohol, the new definition recognizes that a victim can be incapacitated and thus unable to consent because of ingestion of drugs or alcohol. Similarly, a victim may be legally incapable of consent because of age. The ability of the victim to give consent must be determined in accordance with individual state statutes. Physical resistance is not required on the part of the victim to demonstrate lack of consent. "

For any person below 18, laws are very different. There is a POSCO act. It protects all the genders. There no arguments happen, if one has se* with a minor, then they are culprits. No question of consent.

At least that’s the case in India.

Originally posted by: Pujakrishna

No bakwas i am definately giving him a pass too, but as a third person's pov.

Any partner (here khushi) is bound be hurt and i am even ok if she doesn't give a pass and asks him why he even stayed at a party like that or why he drank so much at a party like that, but again all of this is from a emotional and partially cheated upon partner's perspective. I as a third person can give him a pass.

So this impairment was the only issue..the spouse will hurt..but may eventually understand. Based on the relationship and trust the two have.

Puja, the two have had issues since Khushi brought up having kids. 2013 right. He has been distancing himself since then

It takes two to tango..plus no spouse ever knows everything about your life. Man or woman...it is a myth we share everything. We share when we feel comfortable and want to.

He had an opportunity, he recognizes he is wrong,he thinks he should see a therapist. He does nothing. Live life the way I want to.

That is their biggest issue. This incident just pushed the inevitable.

Shradha

OMG! This answer from Khushi’s point of view is what I am trying to get across. His bad judgement allowed this to happen.

I have never ever given Lavenya a pass ever in any of my posts. She is a morally corrupt woman. But unless this was preplanned and he was drugged she didn’t rape him. She did take advantage of him. She is immoral. He didn’t give emotional consent but bodily consent. When he started kissing her back and clothes were removed do you think impaired Lavenya thought he didn’t want it?

I am saying in general men’s biology reacts to sexual stimulus different than a woman’s and that’s why men in general can engage in meaningless sex.

Rape is a whole other matter. I am not excusing Lavenya but I am not absolving Arnav for what happened either.

Originally posted by: tashi26

what you are saying is absolutely correct,I am not arguing your point at all. But will sya how court works, in alcohol, it was not only erection, he was actively kissing her, removing clothes. That’s is how the argument goes, as it was not a simple case of penetration but full participation in the act. Even the other party was in an inebriated state so taking advantage can also be argued.

For any person below 18, laws are very different. There is a POSCO act. It protects all the genders. There no arguments happen, if one has se* with a minor, then they are culprits. No question of consent.

At least that’s the case in India.

Too many cases about how girls have been taken advantage of. They were above 18. Scenario you described.

Dont know about India. I live in US. Law sucks based on state you are in and lawyers have a field day to prove victim was willing.

Shit happens when your judgement is impaired. Don't they say get wasted but in company you trust.

Somehow I think alcohol can cause impairment too. You do things you will never do. Including removing clothes.

But I get your point that you are distinguishing between liquor and drugs..

Originally posted by: bakwas_serial

So this impairment was the only issue..the spouse will hurt..but may eventually understand. Based on the relationship and trust the two have.

Puja, the two have had issues since Khushi brought up having kids. 2013 right. He has been distancing himself since then

It takes two to tango..plus no spouse ever knows everything about your life. Man or woman...it is a myth we share everything. We share when we feel comfortable and want to.

He had an opportunity, he recognizes he is wrong,he thinks he should see a therapist. He does nothing. Live life the way I want to.

That is their biggest issue. This incident just pushed the inevitable.

Shradha

I agree with everything you said.

And i am giving him a pass only on the sleeping thing. Not on anything else, not on how 'shittily' he behaved with khushi since the baby talk.

No he is the culprit there 1000%, i am just saying in sleeping episode, just in the sleeping episode he is the victim.

Originally posted by: BollyBabe75

OMG! This answer from Khushi’s point of view is what I am trying to get across. His bad judgement allowed this to happen.

I have never ever given Lavenya a pass ever in any of my posts. She is a morally corrupt woman. But unless this was preplanned and he was drugged she didn’t rape him. She did take advantage of him. She is immoral. He didn’t give emotional consent but bodily consent. When he started kissing her back and clothes were removed do you think impaired Lavenya thought he didn’t want it?

I am saying in general men’s biology reacts to sexual stimulus different than a woman’s and that’s why men in general can engage in meaningless sex.

Rape is a whole other matter. I am not excusing Lavenya but I am not absolving Arnav for what happened either.

but but…

Men’s biology definitely plays a role here doesn’t it? Yes he gave in because he was aroused. But why did that happen? Because Lavanya didn’t back off a seriously inebriated man who vocally and physically gave all the signs that he wasn’t interested or comfortable. Yes he gave in, but not after one or two attempts. It’s written then she came on again and again and again. Over a man who was out of his senses. How is that not r*pe?

According to men’s biology then, which I’m sure Lavanya is seasoned with, isn’t this coercing him into responding? Why does his first, second and repeated ‘No’ hold no meaning?

Edit - Men who literally get r*ped. Even they have an arousal which helps in participating in penetrative sex. That’s just biology. By no means it is consent. And Lavanya should know this.

Originally posted by: bakwas_serial

Too many cases about how girls have been taken advantage of. They were above 18. Scenario you described.

Dont know about India. I live in US. Law sucks based on state you are in and lawyers have a field day to prove victim was willing.

Shit happens when your judgement is impaired. Don't they say get wasted but in company you trust.

Somehow I think alcohol can cause impairment too. You do things you will never do. Including removing clothes.

But I get your point that you are distinguishing between liquor and drugs..

Actually my argument is also from Khushi’s perspective, if there marriage was not rocky and Arnav was not pushing Khushi away. She would have forgiven him within a snap of fingers. Though we all know Arnav was trying to refuse even in his inebriated state but still he blames himself. So, How will he even explain it to khushi?

One more time and I guess I am outnumbered. He gave in and reciprocated when both of them if it can be believed were drunk. She was drunk and so was he. They both were not using good judgement in their impaired state. I think our thinking is clouded because we know about Lavenya’s obsession with him. If he would have come to his senses and not reciprocated I doubt she would have physically forced him. Last post. No one seems to get what I am trying to say and I am slaying a dead horse.

Originally posted by: tashi26

Yes lawyers can get real shitty.

Actually my argument is also from Khushi perspective, if there marriage was not rocky and Arnav was not pushing Khushi away. She would have forgiven him within a snap of fingers. But now though we all know Arnav was trying to refuse even in his inebriated state and still he blames himself. How will he explain it to khushi?

That is conflating two issues Tashi😘 The clinical discussion is just about what happened in the Rave party and was he taken advantage of.

Khushi..the spouse..what she does or reacts to this information ..is a different conversation..right?

The guy is doing so much BS for so long..he just dug a bigger hole for himself.

We have no clue what more the dim wit will do..now that he knows he will be a dad (hope it is scenario you described)

Originally posted by: bakwas_serial

"common societal belief is that a male must be aroused if he gets an erection or has an orgasm, therefore that means that he is willing and enjoying any sexual activity. Roy J. Levin and Willy Van Berlo wrote in an article in the Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine that slight genital stimulation or stress can create erections "even though no specific sexual stimulation is present". An erection does not mean that the men consent to sex.[30] Males can get erections even in traumatic or painful sexual situations, and this does not indicate consent.[29]"...Wikipedia

This is law...yes recent..only 12 years old.

"For the first time ever, the new definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men. It also recognizes that rape with an object can be as traumatic as penile/vaginal rape. This definition also includes instances in which the victim is unable to give consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity. Furthermore, because many rapes are facilitated by drugs or alcohol, the new definition recognizes that a victim can be incapacitated and thus unable to consent because of ingestion of drugs or alcohol. Similarly, a victim may be legally incapable of consent because of age. The ability of the victim to give consent must be determined in accordance with individual state statutes. Physical resistance is not required on the part of the victim to demonstrate lack of consent. "

This may help